Re: fast-forward only policy

[Marc-André Lureau <marcandre lureau gmail com>]

Hi

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Les Harris <lharris gnome org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe contreras gmail com> wrote:
>
> The consensus so far seems to be that losing commits is a non-starter.
>  It's not clear to me what benefit dropping these ossified branches
> gives us.  What is the problem you're trying to solve Felipe?

To me, the objective is to make branch-based development easier. For
that, we should maintain public repo that only have "active" branches.
Otherwise it's confusing for everybody, we need to flag them somehow
to tell "don't worry about, it was just X years ago, but nobody
cares". And public branch _should_ be active, and rebased if
necessary. That would be a good sign of vitality. Also, merged
branches will have to be deleted.

Hiding the work on github, gitorious or any other public place is one
way to avoid talking about this pb. I believe it's not the best way to
keep the work coherent, in one place (although I am certainly not
saying it has to be centralized, rather the contrary!).

Finally, doing the move to git while using *only* old practices, and
keeping old habits do not make much sense.

Not that I care so much, but that's my 2 cents,

regards,

-- 
Marc-André Lureau